Madras HC Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shivshankar Baba, Says Complaint Not Accompanied By Application To Condone Delay

The Madras High Court has allowed the quashing petition filed by self-styled Godman Shivshankar Baba in a case pertaining to sexual harassment.

The Court had observed that the FIR was registered in 2021 while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2010-2011. Though the court found the allegations to be serious, since no application was filed under 473 CrPC to condone the delay, the prosecution was held to be barred by limitation. Justice RN Manjula observed as under

Though the allegations made by the second respondent is serious in nature, because of the absence of any petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay filed along with the complaint, the case becomes barred by limitation. In the said circumstances, I feel that the investigation cannot serve any fruitful purpose and for the reasons of technical flaw, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

The case against Shivshankar Baba was that he had sexually harassed the de facto complainant when she visited the school to discuss about the sudden removal of her son from school. Based on her complaint, a case was lodged under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

The petitioner contended that the case was barred by limitation as per Section 468 CrPC. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others where the it was held that there is legal bar to the institution and continuation of the proceedings, the FIR should be quashed. 

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a reason for not accepting the complaint of sexual harassment. It was submitted that even at the time of filing the charge sheet, the investigation agency is at liberty to file a petition under Section 473 CrPC and request the Court to condone the delay for appropriate reasons. 

The court highlighted that sexual harassment cases were serious and delay in reporting the same may be due to the influential position of the perpetrator or understandable reluctance on the part of the victim to come forward.

However, the court noted that as per Section 468, the period of limitation was three years from the date of occurence. Further, in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, the Supreme Court had clearly held that petition to condone the delay should be filed at the time of giving the complaint itself. 

In the present case, the complaint made to the Magistrate was not accompanied by a petition for condoning delay. Thus, even though the allegations appeared to be serious, due to absence of petition for condoning delay, the prosecution was time barred. 

Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

Case No: Crl OP. No.23806 of 2021

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.Vijaya kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor